Question for a Creationist

[Sethy94]

I'm very interested in the creationist's view of science. I'm just curious to know what your take on biology as a science is. I mean, biology can be used to show evidence of how evolution works. To what extent is biology accepted?

 

[JoeyArnold]

Human biology suggests one common ancestor.

 

[Sethy94]

Human biology suggests one common ancestor.

Exactly. That's the same for every single species of life on earth. Their biology suggests a previous ancestor and so on and so forth.

 

[JoeyArnold]

I believe in creation & in science.

 

[Sethy94]

I believe in creation & in science.

The two contradict eachother. How can you believe in both when there is no scientific evidence of creationism? What I mean by that is we have no evidence of a Noah's Arc, or Moses saving his people, or of the world being created in 7 days. Not only is there no sceintific evidence of these event happening, but there's also no historical evidence of them ever happening. The only historical evidence present is that from the bible.

 

[TomZzyzx]

The two contradict eachother. How can you believe in both when there is no scientific evidence of creationism? What I mean by that is we have no evidence of a Noah's Arc, or Moses saving his people, or of the world being created in 7 days. Not only is there no sceintific evidence of these event happening, but there's also no historical evidence of them ever happening. The only historical evidence present is that from the bible.

Sir, apparently you don't understand what a contradiction is. If there is no evidence for creationism then how can science contradict it? Science cannot contradict something that doesn't exist. Also, Noah's Arc or Moses saving his people would not be evidence for creationism. You are mixing evidence for creationism and evidence for the history of the Old Testament. Two different arguments altogether.

 

[Sethy94]

Sir, apparently you don't understand what a contradiction is. If there is no evidence for creationism then how can science contradict it? Science cannot contradict something that doesn't exist. Also, Noah's Arc or Moses saving his people would not be evidence for creationism. You are mixing evidence for creationism and evidence for the history of the Old Testament. Two different arguments altogether.

The lack of evidence for creationism is all the evidence I need.

 

[TomZzyzx]

The lack of evidence for creationism is all the evidence I need.

Actually there is plenty of evidence that suggest that the universe came into existence out of nothing (a big bang) some time ago. The evidence being, (1) The Second of Thermodynamics, (2) The Universe is Expanding, (3) Radiation from the Big Bang, (4) Great Galaxy Seeds and (5) Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Since the universe had a beginning it is one big effect that needed a cause. The Christian world view states that God was the cause of the universe comming into existence.

So there is evidence for a creator of the universe.

 

[Sethy94]

Actually there is plenty of evidence that suggest that the universe came into existence out of nothing (a big bang) some time ago. The evidence being, (1) The Second of Thermodynamics, (2) The Universe is Expanding, (3) Radiation from the Big Bang, (4) Great Galaxy Seeds and (5) Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Since the universe had a beginning it is one big effect that needed a cause. The Christian world view states that God was the cause of the universe comming into existence.

So there is evidence for a creator of the universe.

Yes, There is lots of evidence supporting that the universe came into existence from a single point, or "creator" if you will. Now if this "creator" created the entire universe, then tell me why we think the entire universe was created for one of the 10 billion plus species of life that inhabits this single planet.

 

[TomZzyzx]

Yes, There is lots of evidence supporting that the universe came into existence from a single point, or "creator" if you will. Now if this "creator" created the entire universe, then tell me why we think the entire universe was created for one of the 10 billion plus species of life that inhabits this single planet.

I don't know. It's not something that God has revealed to us.

 

[Sethy94]

I don't know. It's not something that God has revealed to us.

And that's why there's science, so that we can explore and gain more knowledge of what and why we are... I just dont understand why an all good, all knowing, and all loving god would hold things back from "his creation." Why would he want to leave people in doubt, or leave people questioning his existence?? Think about it this way, if you yourself were a god, would you reveal yourself to reassure people that that you're there, or would you keep yourself hidden so that your creations (humans, life etc.) would question your existence? Think about it

 

[Hunor999]

I'm very interested in the creationist's view of science. I'm just curious to know what your take on biology as a science is. I mean, biology can be used to show evidence of how evolution works. To what extent is biology accepted?

The only thing that can be taken as a fact is common ancestry, but it has nothing to with the whole idea, that genetic information we possess is produced by mutations!

It is possible that the first cell was not a simple bacteria, but a primordial stem cell, that already carried the instructions for an entire evolution as a fertilized ovum carries the genetic information for an ontogeny. There are many proofs that this is what actually happened.

check my post about sponge bob for more info

 

[miamited]

I'm very interested in the creationist's view of science. I'm just curious to know what your take on biology as a science is. I mean, biology can be used to show evidence of how evolution works. To what extent is biology accepted?

Hi sethy,

I'll be happy to give you my understanding of science. Science is fine in proving or disproving the here and now. Things that we can replicate and see what the possible variables involved are. However, when one begins to try and use science to prove things that happened hundreds of years ago, well, it's a lot like biographical sketches that are done of long dead people.

We read a book about Abraham Lincoln and his presidency by someone today who has no first hand knowledge of Abraham Lincoln. He has never sat down and talked with the man and asked him things like, "Well, when this happened how did you feel?" Or, "What was your understanding of this particular issue?"

Instead the biographer will research some of the written evidence left by the president or he might read other books that were written during the president's lifetime or very shortly thereafter. He'll probably peruse newspaper articles and such. But the truth is, that while maybe he's right in his decisions to say that President Lincoln felt this way or understood an issue this way, there isn't really any way to 'prove' that it is the way the president felt.

Similarly, we can, through science do a lot of testing in the here and now, but we have to assume that all the variables were the same at the time that the event that is being studied happened.


The next big issue, for me, is that science neither accepts nor will consider that something might have happened by a miracle. Let me give you an example.

2,000 years ago, before there were hospitals or microscopes; before there were xray machines and medical studies done through cadavers that even gave a clear understanding of how the human reproductive system works; before there were medical prodeedures and tools and equipment that could even work on things as small as a human egg and sperm, a woman came up pregnant.

Her testimony is that she had never had relations with a man. Now, friend, here's my challenge to you. Find for me the scientific explanation of how that woman became pregnant.






You can't! The only way that a woman can become pregnant is that sperm must be introduced into the egg in her uterus and then it travels into the womb and is implanted on the lining there. That's it! There is no option 2. And, in those days, the only way that sperm was introduced into the uterus of a woman was through sexual relations. But we know that didn't happen.

The answer is, that God did it. God made that woman pregnant and she carried to term a baby, but science cannot nor will not accept such an explanation about that woman's pregnancy or about the miracles that God can do.

I believe in God. I know Him and I enjoy His presence in my lilfe. I know that He created this realm of existence for His purpose. I know these things. While I don't understand absolutely everything there is to know about God, I do know and have understood His power and wisedom and authority in what He has created. I know these things! When God tells me that He merely spoke all of this realm into existence because He was establishing a realm in which man could live, then I know that there was no evolutionary period. It didn't take millions and billions of years for all that exists in this realm to become what it is. A perfect God with perfect wisdom and perfect power merely spoke and it all became.

Now, I understand that you are not going to accept this and that's Ok for me. I have already answered to God and accepted His mercy on His terms and all I am asked to do today is to teach others the truth, not make them believe it. Jesus' final words to his disciples was to go into all the world teaching them all that he had taught them. He didn't command them to make anyone believe it because that is both outside of man's ability and God's in these days. However, according to the Scriptures there will come a day that every one will see and understand the truth.

But, for the purposes of your question, the two reasons I don't accept current scientific answers regarding things that happened hundreds and thousands of years ago is that we have no way of knowing the possible variables that may have been in play then and I believe that the existence of this realm is a miracle created by God and is therefore unexplainable by any scientific method.

Sure, I have no problem with science explaining how we can get to the moon and the trajectory necessary for such an endeavor. I have no problem with science telling me how a plant makes sugar that allows it to grow through a root and expiration system.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Sethy94]

Hi sethy,

I'll be happy to give you my understanding of science. Science is fine in proving or disproving the here and now. Things that we can replicate and see what the possible variables involved are. However, when one begins to try and use science to prove things that happened hundreds of years ago, well, it's a lot like biographical sketches that are done of long dead people.

We read a book about Abraham Lincoln and his presidency by someone today who has no first hand knowledge of Abraham Lincoln. He has never sat down and talked with the man and asked him things like, "Well, when this happened how did you feel?" Or, "What was your understanding of this particular issue?"

Instead the biographer will research some of the written evidence left by the president or he might read other books that were written during the president's lifetime or very shortly thereafter. He'll probably peruse newspaper articles and such. But the truth is, that while maybe he's right in his decisions to say that President Lincoln felt this way or understood an issue this way, there isn't really any way to 'prove' that it is the way the president felt.

Similarly, we can, through science do a lot of testing in the here and now, but we have to assume that all the variables were the same at the time that the event that is being studied happened.


The next big issue, for me, is that science neither accepts nor will consider that something might have happened by a miracle. Let me give you an example.

2,000 years ago, before there were hospitals or microscopes; before there were xray machines and medical studies done through cadavers that even gave a clear understanding of how the human reproductive system works; before there were medical prodeedures and tools and equipment that could even work on things as small as a human egg and sperm, a woman came up pregnant.

Her testimony is that she had never had relations with a man. Now, friend, here's my challenge to you. Find for me the scientific explanation of how that woman became pregnant.






You can't! The only way that a woman can become pregnant is that sperm must be introduced into the egg in her uterus and then it travels into the womb and is implanted on the lining there. That's it! There is no option 2. And, in those days, the only way that sperm was introduced into the uterus of a woman was through sexual relations. But we know that didn't happen.

The answer is, that God did it. God made that woman pregnant and she carried to term a baby, but science cannot nor will not accept such an explanation about that woman's pregnancy or about the miracles that God can do.

I believe in God. I know Him and I enjoy His presence in my lilfe. I know that He created this realm of existence for His purpose. I know these things. While I don't understand absolutely everything there is to know about God, I do know and have understood His power and wisedom and authority in what He has created. I know these things! When God tells me that He merely spoke all of this realm into existence because He was establishing a realm in which man could live, then I know that there was no evolutionary period. It didn't take millions and billions of years for all that exists in this realm to become what it is. A perfect God with perfect wisdom and perfect power merely spoke and it all became.

Now, I understand that you are not going to accept this and that's Ok for me. I have already answered to God and accepted His mercy on His terms and all I am asked to do today is to teach others the truth, not make them believe it. Jesus' final words to his disciples was to go into all the world teaching them all that he had taught them. He didn't command them to make anyone believe it because that is both outside of man's ability and God's in these days. However, according to the Scriptures there will come a day that every one will see and understand the truth.

But, for the purposes of your question, the two reasons I don't accept current scientific answers regarding things that happened hundreds and thousands of years ago is that we have no way of knowing the possible variables that may have been in play then and I believe that the existence of this realm is a miracle created by God and is therefore unexplainable by any scientific method.

Sure, I have no problem with science explaining how we can get to the moon and the trajectory necessary for such an endeavor. I have no problem with science telling me how a plant makes sugar that allows it to grow through a root and expiration system.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

I respect your beliefs and view points on God and life. I'm not on here to knock down believers because what you believe in is your choice. Science, biology, and physics now a days give us an understanding of how things work and why certain things happen. Since the laws of physics and science are universal, that means we can use what we know now and apply it to past events to help us gain evidence to draw conclusions...

The beauty of science is that it is ALWAYS changing. It works based off evidence that is gathered up to help us draw the best conclusion for a certain event or (theory.) Now, when scientists use the word "theory" to describe evolution, or the big bang, that doesn't mean that the theory is just a random guess or idea... For example; It is a theory that planet Earth orbits the sun. Observations, calculations, and evidence are all piled up to support a theory so that we can draw the best conclusion from that theory. We happen to have so much evidence and what not to support the theory of the earth orbiting the sun that the theory is strongly supported... We do not know everything there is to know about why and how the Earth orbits, but from what we do know, we are able to draw that conclusion.

In science, there are no such things as miracles... EVERYTHING that happens can be explained through proper scientific examination. Let's say your car breaks down and you cant seem to fix the problem. You call a mechanic and after several hours of looking at the car, he tells you that the car just simply wont work... There IS a reason that the car broke down, and even though the mechanic couldn't diagnose the problem, that doesn't mean the breakdown cant be discovered and fixed..

Even though we do not have all the evidence and facts to fully support evolution, or the creation of everything, we can still make accurate guesses based on what we know today. The fossil record, DNA, similar physical features amongst all life, and evidence of micro evolution occurring today all go to support the "theory" of evolution. I know some believers think that carbon dating on fossils is flawed and that god put the fossils there... But that doesnt matter! We can throw the fossil record out of the pile because DNA alone gives us enough evidence to support evolution. Whether you believe in it or not, evolution is and has been occurring on this planet, and with the help of the scientific process we can make conclusions as to why and how things work. Science cannot be used to explain anything spiritual such as God, heaven, angels, or miracles... Science is used to explain how our physical world works.

Some may knock it down because it can't explain certain biblical events. But if you trust science to explain medical issues, biology, atomic particles, physics, and the chemical make up of life, then why knock it down when it conflicts with the bible??

 

[gnx1987]

I'm very interested in the creationist's view of science. I'm just curious to know what your take on biology as a science is. I mean, biology can be used to show evidence of how evolution works. To what extent is biology accepted?

The thing I hate the most about the creation vs evolution/big bang debate is when it's referred to as the creation vs science debate. Like creationists are a bunch of morons who deny science whether it be evolution or geology or astronomy or physics etc.

I also get the impression (although I'm sure it's not true) that evolutionists believe that scientists are in unity on all things science. You only have to look at the man made global warming debate to see that this is not true. Sure they can say "Well most scientists conclude that man made global warming is true, so it must be." But that's irrelevant because the truth is not a democracy. The fact there is disagreement amongst scientists is enough to show that one group of scientists must be wrong on their observations. Is it not possible that evolution scientists might also have wrongly observed something or things.

I also love how pastors are criticized by atheists and others for just trying to get money out of their congregation but don't give the same critique to evolution and big bang theorists. What would happen to these guys if they just bent over and said evolution/big bang theory is not true? Out of work! Instead of getting buckets of money from government grants and appearing at all the evolution and anti god shin digs, books and wherever else they get their money, it'll be highly unlikely they'll be getting that same money in whatever else they resort to.

 

[Sethy94]

The thing I hate the most about the creation vs evolution/big bang debate is when it's referred to as the creation vs science debate. Like creationists are a bunch of morons who deny science whether it be evolution or geology or astronomy or physics etc.

I also get the impression (although I'm sure it's not true) that evolutionists believe that scientists are in unity on all things science. You only have to look at the man made global warming debate to see that this is not true. Sure they can say "Well most scientists conclude that man made global warming is true, so it must be." But that's irrelevant because the truth is not a democracy. The fact there is disagreement amongst scientists is enough to show that one group of scientists must be wrong on their observations. Is it not possible that evolution scientists might also have wrongly observed something or things.

I also love how pastors are criticized by atheists and others for just trying to get money out of their congregation but don't give the same critique to evolution and big bang theorists. What would happen to these guys if they just bent over and said evolution/big bang theory is not true? Out of work! Instead of getting buckets of money from government grants and appearing at all the evolution and anti god shin digs, books and wherever else they get their money, it'll be highly unlikely they'll be getting that same money in whatever else they resort to.

I'm not saying creationists are a bunch of morons, I'm just curious to know at what point do you deny science and resort to the fact that "God made it."? It's almost like you're so content with the belief that God created everything that you're not even the slightest bit curious to know how existence and life came to be. That's what science tries to help us figure out.

The beautiful thing about science is that it CAN be wrong, because new findings and evidence are constantly being discovered. Typically when two scientists disagree on something, they go back to the drawing board for more evidence, or hear eachother out to take in the other opinion. Take this for example; in the 1,500's humans thought that the earth was flat and that the sun went around (orbited) the earth. Over the years, new scientific data and evidence have knocked down the previous thoughts and we now have sufficient evidence to say that planet earth orbits the sun. Keep in mind that it's still a theory ^^ the only difference is that we have a lot of reliable evidence to support this theory. Now if this were religion, we still to this day would believe that the earth was flat because that was the norm established back in the 1,500's. Science is an ongoing, changing process... Religion is established and doesn't change.

On the other hand, there is not a lot of data on global warming for any scientist to make any sort of claim. Some think it is happening based off their collected data, some disagree. Eventhough people are two sided on this issue, when enough data or evidence to support the global warming theory is gathered, I can guarantee you that the other party will change their minds. Scientists are open to being wrong about things. And are able to take in different view points. It's not like there are going to be two kinds of people on this planet; Non-global warming and Global warming believers...

Try taking in a different view point or watch a video on the cosmos. I was catholic until about age 20 when I studied astronomy, biology, physics, environmental science, and philosophy in college. The more educated I became, the more curious I was to discover what exactly this world we are living in is... I wasn't satisfied enough with the fact that God created EVERYTHING the way it is, I wanted to find out more, and take in a different view point.

 

[The Engineer]

The thing I hate the most about the creation vs evolution/big bang debate is when it's referred to as the creation vs science debate. Like creationists are a bunch of morons who deny science whether it be evolution or geology or astronomy or physics etc.

I don't see how creationism can be regarded as a scientific theory if it relies so much on untestable, unfalsifiable claims.

By the way, to believe in Young Earth Creationism, one has to deny a lot of scientific discoveries. Radiocarbodating, DNA decay, sedimentary layers, the fact that we can discover stars several million light years away, asteroid craters on earth (if they all hit the earth in the span of 10000 years, we'd have another ice age)... the list goes on.

Then there's the claim that macroevolution can't happen, even though it's driven by the exact same mechanism as microevolution. The only persons who believe there's a magic line dividing those two things are people who have no idea about the issue.

I also get the impression (although I'm sure it's not true) that evolutionists believe that scientists are in unity on all things science.

I'm aware that's not the case, but on some things, there's a very strong scientific consensus. There's no consensus whether the string theory is right or not, but I'd say the great majority of biologists think the evolution theory is right.

I also love how pastors are criticized by atheists and others for just trying to get money out of their congregation but don't give the same critique to evolution and big bang theorists.

That's because those pastors claim moral authority. When a criminal steals money, it's nothing special. When a person who is hailed as a paragon steals it, that's a lot more outrageous.

 

[The Engineer]

The next big issue, for me, is that science neither accepts nor will consider that something might have happened by a miracle. Let me give you an example.

That's because those claims are always unfalsifiable.

2,000 years ago, before there were hospitals or microscopes; before there were xray machines and medical studies done through cadavers that even gave a clear understanding of how the human reproductive system works; before there were medical prodeedures and tools and equipment that could even work on things as small as a human egg and sperm, a woman came up pregnant.


Her testimony is that she had never had relations with a man. Now, friend, here's my challenge to you. Find for me the scientific explanation of how that woman became pregnant.

She had sexual intercourse, but claimed she hadn't, and for some reason, people believed her.

The answer is, that God did it. God made that woman pregnant and she carried to term a baby, but science cannot nor will not accept such an explanation about that woman's pregnancy or about the miracles that God can do.

Because it's untestable, and unfalsifiable. And because the only proof we have that the women never had sex was her own testimony.

But, for the purposes of your question, the two reasons I don't accept current scientific answers regarding things that happened hundreds and thousands of years ago is that we have no way of knowing the possible variables that may have been in play then

There's no reason why the variables should have changed. Assuming they didn't change would be the rational thing to do, especially because this would be the only way how we could make any predictions at all.

 

[gnx1987]

I don't see how creationism can be regarded as a scientific theory if it relies so much on untestable, unfalsifiable claims.

It can be if you use logic and reason. To believe everything you see and can't see came into existence by a proton causing itself into existence (where did the physics come from to allow this) rather than something with infinite power creating it, requires far more faith. I think if all those who believe the scientists are dead right on all their theories, really thought about it, would find they only believe the scientists only because they are scientists even though at the end of the day they are just men who just like anyone else make mistakes.

By the way, to believe in Young Earth Creationism, one has to deny a lot of scientific discoveries. Radiocarbodating, DNA decay, sedimentary layers, the fact that we can discover stars several million light years away, asteroid craters on earth (if they all hit the earth in the span of 10000 years, we'd have another ice age)... the list goes on. Once again. They may be wrong.

Then there's the claim that macroevolution can't happen, even though it's driven by the exact same mechanism as microevolution. The only persons who believe there's a magic line dividing those two things are people who have no idea about the issue. Just because theoretically macroevolution is "possible", doesn't mean it's actually been happening.

I'm aware that's not the case, but on some things, there's a very strong scientific consensus. There's no consensus whether the string theory is right or not, but I'd say the great majority of biologists think the evolution theory is right. Fact and truth can't be decided democratically. I'm sure you remember when Galileo suggested the earth rotated around the sun and everyone else said it didn't. The majority weren't right then.

That's because those pastors claim moral authority. When a criminal steals money, it's nothing special. When a person who is hailed as a paragon steals it, that's a lot more outrageous.

They don't claim moral authority. All they do is preach based on what is written in the bible. If you don't believe what the bible says don't go to church.

 

[toLiJC]

the faith must not be mixed with science, because such a mixing contrasts against the righteousness